Does anyone else actually prefer the 1st edition rules?Maybe it's because I learned from the 1st ed. rules, but they seem easier to digest. They are certainly shorter. I know they are poor for reference and probably full of holes, but I think I actually prefer certain things, like using the Search table. I do use the "optional" rules for weapon attack times and armor. The parrying rule allows an otherwise doomed player a chance to live.

I learned the game with the un-corrected missile table and survived...

It's been a long time since I read 1st edition, but I do think the organization was so bad that it's hardly worth struggling through that book.

The only thing I can think of that I miss from that edition (if I remember correctly) is that the Peer table used to give you a hint (a "glimpse") that would give you a benefit when you roll on the Locate table. So, Peer first and then Locate, which makes thematic sense. It also rewarded doing multiple search phases in the same day. I don't really know why that rule was taken out.

The 1st edition tables also had the effect of making Secret Passages harder to find than Hidden Paths, which also makes thematic sense. Under the current tables, they are equally difficult to find.

Our local group played a lot of games using the 1st edition rules, and we really enjoyed those games. But we switched to the 2nd edition rules the moment they came out and never looked back. Today the 3.1 edition rules are the only version that I would consider using.

One major difference between the 2nd/3rd edition rules and the original 1st edition rules is that the later editions have a much richer selection of optional rules that can customize and modify the game in many different ways.

I don't remember much about our 1st edition games. I do recall that we tried the Parrying rule repeatedly, but it never seemed to do anything worthwhile. The worst of part of the 1st edition rules was probably that horses could not enter cave clearings... that could really limit the usefulness of horses and mounted natives in certain map configurations.

I have wondered if the first edition rules are the way to go. In particular, "armor" seems like an unnecessary rule. It adds more chart referencing for new players and seems to make the warhorse invincible. Also, the different sizes for the natives instead of them all simply being medium was an odd choice.

I assume the dragon heads and giant clubs were also an optional rule in first edition?

I am also curious about how combat was handled thanks to the mysterious text on the battle sheets under the three boxes at the top.

I assume the dragon heads and giant clubs were also an optional rule in first edition?

Yes.

Quote:

I am also curious about how combat was handled thanks to the mysterious text on the battle sheets under the three boxes at the top.

It gave the same results as later editions; it just took a superfluous die roll to do so.

Basically, you'd randomly roll one of your three stacks of opponents to put into the Charge/Thrust box, then you'd roll one of the remaining two stacks to put in the Dodge/Swing box, then the last stack would go in the Duck/Smash box (and if you had fewer than three stacks, then any of these steps might end up empty).

Since there are exactly six possible permutations of three stacks, and they're all pretty easy to describe as either swaps or shifts, you can achieve the same thing with a single d6 (and without the additional staging area to start your stacks in) which is what later editions did.

I see. So instead of the possibility of the monsters swapping positions after being placed, they were placed in a random fashion from the start?

If I understand you correctly, yes.

Either procedure results in the monsters being in uniformly distributed random red boxes by the time combat gets resolved. The first edition method of doing that requires the extra white boxes to start them in, while the second edition method just swaps or cycles them among the red boxes.

I have acquired a physical copy of the first edition rules. I am reading through and am up to the third encounter and these rules are almost infinitely easier to understand than the second edition rulebook. I think it's due partly to the overall less rules text (many fiddly rules were pushed out to the "optional rules" section) and the fact that there are seven encounters instead of four, making each section much smaller and more concise.

I think its because the second edition rulebook immediately says "here is everything you need to know to set up the game", which is handy if you are digging the game out of the closet after a few years and just need a refresher, but very heavy when you have no idea what the game is about or how it plays.

Another example in the second edition is the first encounter. It is jam packed with every basic bit of required information for the full game, however the encounter itself is fairly pointless. I am talking about this from the point of view of someone who knows nothing about the game. Yet, here the game is asking me to assign VPs. It appears you are intended to just wander around gathering treasures while avoiding monsters that block you, yet do not attack. It's some sort of frankenstein version of the game that presents you with a lot of the complexity, yet very little of the actual gameplay. The only thing I learned from it was how and when to put monsters on the tiles.

Compare this to the early part of the first edition rulebook. It only tells you what you need to know. There is no mention of the setup board, monsters, or treasures. It is pure, clear, and concise. Sure, it is extremely basic and boils down to a race, but it doesn't try to pretend it is more than that.

The second encounter bolts player-to-player combat onto this. My only gripe is that there is nothing really forcing the players to attack each other, so the lesson may be lost. I guess whoever is "losing the race" would have an incentive to track down the winner. I strongly agree with the designer's intent to teach combat this way instead of against monsters, as the second edition does.

It is interesting just how many rules from second edition are optional rules in first edition. Even the basic idea of weapon time is optional!

Overall, the first edition seems much better for procedural learning. I agree they are worse for reference, but if you have at least one person who has internalized the rules via the procedural method, then the reference problem is lessened.

I read up through the sixth encounter (natives) and I kept looking for the "hard" parts. I never found any. There was one paragraph I had to read three times before fully understanding, but otherwise it all seems fairly straightforward. I am reserving full judgment until I actually play that encounter, which shouldn't be too far off, but I don't foresee too much trouble.

The rulebook gives the full turn sequence in each encounter, with any newly introduced rules in bold, just like the second edition rulebook. I really don't see how boardgaming veterans would have trouble here.

I remember when I was a boardgame newb, I actually struggled with the rules to Power Grid. I took notes when I read the rules to Tigris & Euphrates and Brass. The idea of me having serious trouble with any rulebook at this point is laughable, but I can see how someone not as invested in the hobby would have trouble here. This game is fairly unique.

That example sounds more like personal taste than a "major issue". True, in first edition, you cannot ALERT in the encounter phase of combat, which would allow the Berserker to go berserk. However, the ability is not broken as stated by the printed rules, it's just different. You have to record an ALERT phase in preparation for combat as opposed to just whipping it out anytime you happen to get in a fight. It's the same as alerting your weapon.

If anyone knows of true problems or brokenness with the first edition, I welcome further comments.

If the ability does not function "as advertised" then it is broken. And the whole idea behind Berserk was exactly that he could, at a cost, be berserk in any combat (per Hamblen no less). Second and Third edition fixed the issue.

AH's The General magazine vol. 16 #4 (which featured/introduced Magic Realm), added Alerting During Combat as a "suggested addition" optional rule for the 1st edition. The rule also had a special provision allowing the Berserker to play his Berserk chit similarly. ("Magic Realm Errata and Additions," by Richard Hamblen, pp. 13-14)

Another suggested addition of note in the same article is the Serious Wounds rule (optional rule 10.A.1 in the third edition rules).

After playing with the Woods Girl today, a character who pretty much needs her weapon alerted for every combat, I wondered if allowing her to alert during the encounter step would be unbalanced. It would make it far too easy for her to just scoot around, hiding, then alerting at will when combat happens to come up. I think I prefer the gameplay of forcing her to run from unwanted combats, then return next turn with an alerted weapon.

I actually had something like eight days in a row where I did the alert action in preparation of potential combat. I'm not sure when you would spend (waste?) the time to ALERT if you could freely do it in the encounter step.

I'm not sure when you would spend (waste?) the time to ALERT if you could freely do it in the encounter step.

After reading the related rules, I now see why you would: if the monster is too fast for you to alert during combat, or if you don't want to expose yourself to fatigue.

After getting through the game up to encounter five with the first edition rulebook, I decided to go back and re-read up to the same point in the second edition book. It is amazing how much extraneous text there is. For example, the rules regarding combat. There is about three times as much text as would be required. First, he does a "summary" of combat, which seems to provide almost all of the rules you would need, but not quite. The next section talks about actually playing the chits and such during combat, but you still have no idea what is going on. Finally, the next section explains what the first two could have with just a few additional sentences added: how to play out the combat.

So my personal experience is that I had almost no issue reading and following along with the first edition rulebook, but the second edition went overboard and it is much more difficult for a completely new player to learn from the rules using it. If I didn't already know how to play the game via the first edition rules, I would probably still be fumbling through the second edition.

It also definitely feels like you should have a firm grasp of each encounter before moving on to the next. I am able to understand the third encounter (2nd edition) with no problem now, even though this seems to be the most derided chapter.